Tom King’s CRM Plus --
Ruminations on "cultural resource management," environmental impact assessment, and related esoteric topics, by a curmudgeon who seldom has anything good to say about anything.

Follow by Email

Tuesday, November 18, 2014

The Albino Redwood: A Significant Non-Historic, Non-Traditional Cultural Place

Cotati’s Chimeric Albino Redwood, en route to
its new home

In connection with updating National Register Bulletin 38 on
traditional cultural places (TCPs), with which I’m helping the National Park
Service (NPS), a couple of people have asked for examples of places that, while
they may be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), are not
TCPs. Or that aren’t eligible for the
NRHP regardless of their traditional cultural character. Those of us working on the update have agreed
that providing such examples would not be a good idea – that doing so would
only provoke arguments and tempt misuse.

But as work on the update has progressed, I’ve become aware
of a place – a source of community pride and controversy and the focus of what
seems to be a mutually satisfactory piece of conflict resolution – that seems
to me an irresistible example of a significant place that’s neither a TCP nor
eligible for the NRHP.

The “place” is a tree – a rare Chimeric Albino Redwood –
hermaphroditic, with foliage shading from green to white – that’s grown quietly
for many years in Cotati, California[1]. The tree was scheduled for removal to make
way for track work in connection with construction of the “SMART[2]
Train” – a light rail commuter service along the U.S. 101 corridor through
Sonoma and Marin Counties. The community
rallied to its defense, and in the end it was saved by the SMART proponents,
who carefully moved it to a safe location down the tracks.

My sister, Cotati historian Prue Draper, has been one of
those spearheading preservation of the tree, and I hasten to say that I’m very
glad for her success and applaud the SMART folks for their action. But as Prue was working to rally support on
the tree’s behalf, and despite the fact that I’m sure there must be federal
money behind the SMART Train, thereby making it subject to review under Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), I refrained from
suggesting that she allege the tree’s eligibility for the NRHP. Because I just don’t think it’s eligible, and
to raise the question – especially if the official answer came back as “no” –
might complicate Prue’s efforts.

But why don’t I think the tree is eligible? It’s old enough – it was planted some eighty
years ago – and it arguably falls within the NRHP’s definition of an “object,”
that is, “a material thing
of functional, aesthetic, cultural, historical or scientific value that may be,
by nature or design, movable yet related to a specific setting or environment”
(36 CFR § 60.3(j)). Its preservation
clearly enjoyed and enjoys community support, and the SMART Train has invested
a good deal of effort, money, and engineering/arboreal know-how in preserving
it.

But
still….. I’d have a hard time arguing
that the Albino Redwood was eligible for the NRHP. I just can’t see that it meets any of the
NRHP’s criteria (36 CFR § 60.4):

1.It’s
not associated with any significant historic events or patterns of events that
I know of (per NRHP criterion “a” – 36 CFR § 60.4(a)). It was planted and it grew; that’s about all
there is to it.

2.Nor is
it associated with any individual who figures prominently in the history of
Cotati, Sonoma County, or California (per NRHP criterion “b” – 36 CFR §
60.4(b)). The gentleman who planted it
was apparently a perfectly honorable and contributory member of the community,
but nobody has suggested that he had a pivotal role in local, state, or other
history. Now it’s become associated with
Prue, and she’s certainly played such roles, but it would be a bit much
even for her devoted baby brother to suggest that her recent effort to preserve
the tree, in and of itself, made the redwood eligible for the NRHP.

3.Per NRHP criterion “c” – does the tree “embody the distinctive
characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction,” or “represent
the work of a master, or “possess high artistic values?” Well, only God can make a tree, so I suppose
the “work of a master” subcriterion might apply, but I suspect that the Keeper
of the NRHP would balk at an argument that could really apply to any
tree or other work of creation – and there might be some church/state issues,
too. Criterion “c” also allows places to
be eligible that “represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose
components may lack individual distinction,” but I’m not sure that the
distinguishable entity “redwood trees of Sonoma County” would be much easier to
justify as historically significant than the Cotati redwood alone.

4.What about the last of the NRHP criteria –
Criterion “d”? Has the tree yielded, or
may it be likely to yield, “information
important in prehistory or history?” I
don’t think so. Its albino, chimeric,
hermaphroditic character makes it quite a rare tree – maybe even unique – and it’s
of interest to botanists and arborists, but standard NHPA practice suggests to
me that Criterion “d,” even though it doesn’t say so, really justifies
ascribing significance only to places that can produce information important in
human history and prehistory.
While human history in Sonoma County has certainly featured a good deal
of interaction with redwoods, I don’t know what information this redwood
might supply about that interaction.
Rather little, I suspect.

But
going back to Criterion “a,” could I not argue that the tree is a traditional
cultural place (TCP)? Does not the very
demonstration of community support for the tree that Prue and others organized mean
that it’s associated with significant historical events or patterns of events? Was not its very preservation a significant
event in Cotati’s history?

Well,
maybe, and perhaps in fifty years or so people will look back and recognize it
as such, but for now, I just don’t see it.
It would be otherwise if people in Cotati had worshipped the tree, or
gotten married in its shade, or held picnics around it, or held climbing races
up it, or written poems about its variegated foliage; then, I think, the
TCP case might well be made. But as far
as I can tell, everyone just walked and drove past it and at most wondered what
was wrong with that funny-looking redwood, until Tom Stapleton, a professional arborist, learned that it was in
danger and alerted Prue and others to the fact.
The rest is history, but too recent history, I think, to make the tree
eligible for the NRHP.

Thanks to the
community’s mobilization and SMART’s consistency with its acronym, Cotati’s
albino redwood is now safe, apparently thriving, and may well enjoy a long life
as a place that becomes traditional in the city’s cultural life – and hence
eligible for the NRHP. For now, though,
I think it’s a good example of a place that’s significant but neither
traditional nor eligible.

1 comment:

Pages

Welcome to Tom King's CRM Plus

Welcome to my blog on topics related to "cultural resource management," whatever that may mean to you or me. I hope you find some interest in what you read here, that you'll add your own contributions, and that you'll encourage others to have a look. Thanks!

About Me

Thomas F. King holds a PhD in anthropology from the University of California Riverside (1976), and has worked since the 1960s in the evolving fields of research and management variously referred to as heritage, cultural resource management, and historic preservation. He is particularly known for his work with Section 106 of the U.S. National Historic Preservation Act, and with indigenous and other traditional cultural places.

King is the author and editor of ten textbooks and tradebooks (See http://www.amazon.com/Thomas-F.-King/e/B001IU2RWK/ref=sr_tc_2_0?qid=1353864454&sr=1-2-ent) as well as scores of journal articles, popular articles, and internet offerings on heritage topics.His career includes the conduct of archaeological research in California and the Micronesian islands, management of academy-based and private cultural resource consulting organizations, helping establish government historic preservation systems in the freely associated states of Micronesia, oversight of U.S. government project review for the federal government’s Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, service as a litigant and expert witness in heritage-related lawsuits, and extensive work as a consultant and educator in heritage-related topics. He is the co-author of the U.S. National Park Service's government-wide guidance on "traditional cultural properties" (TCPs; see http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/pdfs/nrb38.pdf). He occasionally teaches short classes about historic preservation project review, traditional cultural places, and consultation with indigenous groups, and consults and writes as TFKing PhD LLC. Current major clients include several American Indian tribes and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.